Talk:Storm Front, Part II (episode)
Featured nomination * Self-nomination. The concluding episode in the "Storm Front" two-parter. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:07, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' Tobyk777 23:49, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Comment. You write great articles (once again, no vote from me on account of not seeing it) and I'm sure this will be featured, but I think you might want to break up some of the paragraphs. In particular act three, paragraph one looks awfully long. I think this is because you alot one paragraph per scene, which is a good policy, but doesn't have to be absolute. --Schrei 17:32, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC) *Looks good to me. Support. -Platypus Man 17:37, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC) *After a few very minor tweaks, it now has my full Support. An excellent article. --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Support, although the image of Daniels right on top of Earth, and then going over that line annoys me. Not that it needs to be fixed or anything, it just does. - AJHalliwell 05:19, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Featured - Alan del Beccio 23:02, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC) US Presidents As an European, it is nice to see that (quite) only the US presidents have the honor to figure into MA database on an individual page.Philoust123 19:11, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) Timeline reset scene (from Ten Forward) Why are there pages about the people (notably Presidents) who appeared in the timeline reset scene in ? The pages are written as if they are the same people in the Star Trek universe. Shouldn't these be changed to be similar to the pages about actors? After all, that's what they are, their roles are only uncredited. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 16:21, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC) :No, Stephen Hawking is the page about the person in the Star Trek universe -- or is it the page about the Stephen Hawking who played him. Hmm... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I feel we should make a page for the timestream and place the images there, deleting the random pages about Clinton, Blair, Bush. We can make all the little speculative arguments that the community feels the need to have there made into notes at the bottom or something. These pages are currently causing endless trouble and absolutely every word on them is non-canon because we don't know anything about their context. Should we decide to keep these pages and not place them into an article about the timestream then we are soon going to end up having to work them into Human history and then heaven help us. Jaf 13:19, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf :"Vladimir Brezhnev"? Huh? Lenin or Brezhnev? gul garak 06:31, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) :There was a picture of the 9/11 incident in this episode. I wonder if that was Paramount's way of supporting our troops currently in Iraq or where-ever when this episode was made and aired (Sorry, I was a little off topic).-- 02:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ::The inclusion of the September 11 WTC attack was most likely an acknowledgment of a tragic, devastating event in Earth's history. It presented an instantly recognizable image to help show the audience (and Archer) that the timeline was, indeed, going back to "normal", although I'm sure there was a dedicative or commemorative aspect to it, as well. --From Andoria with Love 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC) :::*cough* *cough* Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 *cough* *cough* :::*cough* *cough* The current war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 *cough* *cough* --OuroborosCobra talk 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Sure it does. It has to do with an increase in patriotism and support for US troops. --Ortzinator 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) You're history! I do wish Manny Coto knew some history... This is a prime example of writers doing alternate history without knowing what the real history looked like, first. A weak Russia wouldn't encourage Hitler to attack Britain, but Russia (because he despised Slavs as sub-human); no Coms doesn't perforce mean a weak Russia (given Stalin's appeals to "Rodina", it may mean stronger Russia); & invasion of the U.S. is a fantasy (Germany couldn't successfully invade Britain, let alone execute a transatlantic invasion). I also wonder just how Stuka dive bombers made strafing passes on Enterprise & where the Me-262s were... It was enjoyable even so. gul garak 06:50, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) Agreed. You'd think they could at least closely read some of Turtledove's stuff. It's actually just as plausible, if not moreso, that no Lenin could have meant no Hitler, because the outcome of the FIRST World War would have been a bit different. And, any transatlantic invasion of North America seems very unlikely before the mid-50's at least, and the only real way to make it work would have been for the Nazis to start coming up from Mexico, not taking New York. It's well supported that Hitler didn't really want a war with the US and tried to avoid one, and it's arguable he fancied an alliance with the US even. This is likely because they worked backwards from what they wanted; they wanted the Nazis in the US invading, and they wanted New York captured... and they wanted it in the early 40's like WW2 was. Unfortunately this just wasn't in the cards historically so the setup was flimsy. More likely would have been, in the turmoil of the 20's having Britain taken by a fascist group sympathetic to Hitler... and then via a German-British alliance using Canada as a starting point to invade the east coast. (But US fascists would have been more likely, though no invasion then.) --JCoyote 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) If no Lenin still allowed for the rise of Hitler then it would be pointless to go for Moscow as St Petersburgs would Be the Capital.) --[[User: Jimbo On Wales As far as I know, the rise of Hitler was facilitated by the poor state of Germany after the First World War. The Russian Revolution caused the withdrawal of the Russians from that war, so if anything it slowed down the victory of the allies. I'll agree that an invasion of the US from the east side seems somewhat unlikely, but there's no telling what kind of influence the Na'kuhl could have had. It's also interesting to note that the US flag was depicted alongside the Nazi flag, implying some form of collaboration. -- Defstar 12:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) With or without Lenin aside, a Germany not threatened by Russia (and "threatened" or not, Hitler had more or less stated in Mein Kampf that he intended to invade Russia) easily taking England is bullshit - the Battle of Britain was lost before Operation Barbarossa was even on the drawing board.--Ten-pint 21:34, November 23, 2009 (UTC) :The whole alternate history doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry to say it feels like the writers of an American television series not knowing or understanding anything that happens outside their country. (Or even inside it: Does it really seem likely 1940s New York wasn't filled with racists before the Germans arrived?) Hitler never wanted a war with western Europe, he considered the people there his racial equals and potential allies. He invaded eastern Europe, considering them racially inferior, and expected no-one to object only for the UK (not "England" as Reed, the one person on the ship who should know better, calls it - unless Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still holding out?) and France to declare war on him in defence of Poland. And as other people have said, Germany and Russia weren't at war anyway until 1941 (no-one heard of the Warsaw Pact?) and a Tsarist Russia wouldn't really be less of a thread than a Communist Russia. (And why's Churchill broadcasting from an occupied country? Or is he in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?) The crazy thing is they could have avoided it all if they just said Vosk gave the Nazis advanced technology. Instead it seems he turned up, found the Germans were already winning...a bit more than they would have been anyway and threw in his lot with them. – Skteosk 16:08, December 21, 2009 (UTC) :::This is all a nice discussion, but unless it pertains to improving or changing the article we should move on. This is not the forum to criticize the writers.--31dot 23:13, December 21, 2009 (UTC) ::::Nazi apologism now? Hitler DID want a war in Western Europe. Part of his goal was to wash away what he saw as the shame German experienced at the end of World War I, and that meant going back into France and the Low Countries, and winning. He may or may not have initially wanted a war in Britain, but to say he didn't want a war in the West is to say he didn't want one in Poland when he said that Czechoslovakia was enough at Munich. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:21, December 22, 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, my GCSE History days are a long time ago but as I recall Hitler (wrongly) believed the West only turned on Germany the first time round because they wanted a piece of Africa. Part of "getting it right" the first time round was building a new German Empire in Eastern Europe because he felt nobody wanted it. He probably wanted to regain the land Germany had lost to France and other countries as a result of the treaty but the occupation of the west wasn't anywhere near on a par with the occupation of the east. (He was willing to work with Vichy France, he'd never have done that in Czechoslavakia.) And I don't see how calling Hitler a racist bent on genocide is Nazi apologism. I'm just not paranoid enough to think every dictator in the world is out to get me. – Skteosk 14:56, December 24, 2009 (UTC) Hmm....Strange Not sure if mentioned in article, but shouldn't it be considered "Strange" that Germans would accept Aliens just as badly as jews? German Superiority or whatever. NeoExelor 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :I'm not sure exactly which way you intended that to sound. But the Nazi concept of ubermensch was based in some pseudoscience and mysticism. They didn't think they were the only superior race, just the purest of them. They searched the world for archaelogical evidence of "aryan races". Convincing the Nazis your highly technologically advanced alien race was kindred spirits might not have been that hard, especially when your offering them advanced technology and telling them what they want to hear about their own theories. "Your Nazi beliefs are precisely correct, we had to do the exact same thing on our world to keep the impure races from holding us back." Suddenly the Nazis would have been their buddies after that. --JCoyote 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) A minor point Just a very minor point, but I don't think Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who is mentioned in this article was ever knighted. He's referred to in the article, incorrectly, as Sir William Lyon Mackenzie King. I'm not going to change that myself because I'm not positive. 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) :Correct, you are. If you Really want to give him proper title, he's the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, Privy Council, Order of Merit, Order of St Michael and St George. (I do realize The Right Honourable and PC are redundant). --- Jaz Odd sequence of conquering countries I don't know if anyone has noticed this but don't you think that the sequence in which the European countries were conquered by Germany is rather flawed in this episode. It is stated that France was the first to be conquered, and that Belgium and the Netherlands followed after, with the latter as the last. This seems a bit odd, seeing that Belgium and the Netherlands border Germany in a much more direct way than France. Conquering France without first crossing Belgium has historically been proven to be near on impossible, which is why Germany violated Belgian neutrality in both World Wars by invaded the smaller Belgium first, in order to be able to implement their Blitzkrieg tactic in France. Even with advanced weaponry, bypassing Belgium to invade France would be of no use, the country would still have to be conquered and it would require that German troops turned back around to attack it after conquering France, negating the use of the blitzkrieg tactics. This is just basic geography mostly. Look at a map, how could, or why would Germany attack France first? It wasn't even the first to be attacked. Poland was. I seriously think this should be mentioned somewhere. It looks like a pretty basic error on the part of the writers. --Marjolijn 10:42, 16 October 2008 (CET) :Which would make it a nitpick. We habe no idea how the Na'kuhl helped the Germans. Maybe they did an air strike, using some advanced weapon. We don't know. Mentioning it would just be a nitpick which we disencourage. --Jörg 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Nazis Does anyone feel that this article throws around the word "nazi" a little too liberally? I think for many of these, the word "german" would suffice. It is like calling american tanks "republican tanks" or "democrat tanks." Nazi soldiers, nazi trucks, nazi generals... I know it was common to refer to such things during the period but in an encyclopedia I think the national tag would be much better (german). Very Long Article This article is very very long, should it be shortened? 16:19, January 18, 2011 (UTC) :No. -- sulfur 17:36, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Ships in the armada Can anyone identify any of the ships in the armada seen at the end of the episode?--Brumagnus 21:42, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :There are TWO Steamrunner class ships in the Armada. Definitely not Intrepid-type as they have bussards too close to their saucer (integrated, they match steamrunner profile view) and when one of them banks to escort enterprise it has a square blue deflector underneath and behind the saucer. Can someone verify this? The ship on the middle to near bottom right that's got the red bussards (this banks and reveals the deflector). And there's on bottom centre as well that remains head on. Intrepid type is at the very bottom underneath Enterprise' bow after the camera passes back. - 03:34, April 29, 2012 (UTC)